Marriage law same sex oregon
Explore topics and categories
As of September , two people of the same gender and at least 18 years of age, one of whom being an Oregon resident, are still able to contract to be domestic partners. Who can marry in Oregon? In Oregon, you must be 17 years old before you can marry. If you are under 18 years old, you must have the written consent of a parent or guardian before you can marry.
An exception applies if you have no parent or guardian living in Oregon. You may not marry a first cousin or anyone nearer of kin to you unless they are your first cousin by adoption. May a marriage be annulled? A marriage may be annulled, or set aside by the court as if it had never occurred, if at the time of the marriage: either person was under age; either person was incapable of understanding what he or she was doing; or either person consented to the marriage but that consent was obtained by force or fraud.
Do I need a marriage license? The county clerk will issue the license, although the license will not be effective for three days after the date on which the application was signed. This waiting period may be shortened by an order issued by a judge or the county clerk.
Library catalog outage on Thursday, August 18th
Is a physical examination required? Is a Social Security number required? How long is the marriage license valid? The license is valid for 60 days. If you do not marry within that time frame you must apply for another marriage license. Where can the marriage be performed? Once you have a license from any county clerk in Oregon, you can have the marriage anywhere in Oregon. Who can perform the marriage?
Same-Sex Marriage in Oregon
The marriage may be performed by an Oregon judicial officer, county clerk or a clergyperson of any religious organization or congregation. Use of a judicial officer may include an additional fee. What does the marriage ceremony have to include? In the marriage ceremony each person seeking to be married must declare in the presence of the person performing the marriage and two witnesses that they agree to take each other to be spouses.
Do I file a document after the marriage ceremony? Does marriage affect my will? Marriage may revoke an existing will. A will written before the marriage may be valid if it was prepared with the marriage in mind. Marriage does not change the beneficiary of any policy or account, so you must make these changes with each institution, such as life insurance companies, retirement plans, bank or investment accounts, using their forms. The Kansas referendum fits a national pattern. Voters have backed so-called defense of marriage laws in 42 states and rejected civil unions or marriages for homosexual couples in 18 others.
When judges considered the issue as they did in California, New York and Washington state, they overturned bans on gay unions. Today's decision in Oregon runs counter to other judicial rulings. While state-by-state battles continue, Congress is nationalizing the struggle over gay marriage. Yesterday a Senate subcommittee began hearings in a continuing effort to stop gay marriage with a constitutional amendment. Joining us to discuss the national landscape of this active debate are Kevin Cathcart, executive director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund; and Matt Daniels, president of Alliance for Marriage.
Matt Daniels, with these different results coming from different parts of the country, what do you make of what you're seeing? Well, I think in Connecticut, the democratic process operated as our founders intended.
Federal judge strikes down Oregon's same-sex marriage ban - CNN
And I think the court in Oregon did the right thing because in Oregon, which is one of the bluest of the blue states, voters overwhelmingly voted to protect marriage as a man and a woman. And I would caution against conflating civil unions with marriage.
The American people are quite clear in the polling data; they believe that it's common sense; that marriage is a man and a woman; they want our laws to send a positive message to kids about that institution. But they are not unified on the subject of benefits, which is why it's proper for the democratic process as has happened in Connecticut to decide those issues. Well, it's interesting you mentioned that because in Kansas they not only were very rigorous in their definition of marriage in this recent ballot amendment, but also took another step, it appears to slam the door on the possibility of civil unions.
What do you make of that? Well, you know, yeah, I think that the democratic process, with respect to benefits, will create different results in different states. You know, the irony is that groups on both the right and the left often take issue with democracy at the state level when it produces results that they don't like.
So there are some on the right who will complain about Connecticut, and there are some on the left, including all of the gay activist community who will complain about Kansas. Our position is let the people decide; power to the people when it comes to benefits. But we are going to have a national standard of marriage.
It's impossible really as a nation to function without one. And we also want to see that decided democratically rather than through the courts. Well, the decision in Oregon is very disappointing today. Imagine being a couple in Oregon — and there were 3, couples married there for over a year — and having your marriage disallowed by the court.
I do think however that we are likely to see civil union bills in Oregon like we've seen in Connecticut. We are going to continue to see progress in recognition of same-sex couples. And Connecticut's law there was some debate. Even gay activists were not very happy with the results, or many said they weren't today because they felt going that extra mile and amending the bill to include an explicit definition of marriage was not necessary or not welcome.
It was not necessary and it was not welcome. The state attorney general had made it very clear that this civil union bill was not going to provide any marriage rights to anyone. But members of the assembly, for whatever reason, felt like they had to go forward with this gratuitous swipe. Nevertheless, this is a big step forward for the recognition of same-sex couples in Connecticut, and I think it is an important message that will go out around the country that legislatures such as Connecticut's are not afraid to touch the issue.
Well, you call it a gratuitous swipe, but is it the necessary political price that your organizations have to pay to get something of what they want, but just not all of what they want? Well, there may be places where it's a necessary political compromise.
- ugliest looking people in the world.
- Marriage in Oregon.
- find someone driver license number out?
- LGBT rights in Oregon - Wikipedia!
- employment and background check question;
I don't know that that was the case in Connecticut. But it certainly was the compromise that was struck. I think it's important though that we always be focused on the problems with trying to have a separate but equal system where you have one system for one set of people; that is marriage for heterosexual people, and another system for another set of people; that is civil unions or domestic partnerships for lesbians and gay men because separate is inherently unequal and ultimately, we would be better served as a country if we had one standard for all families.
Now, Matt Daniels, earlier we took a look at the map of the United States and saw different states making different decisions. Let me go back to something you said earlier. That there is going to have to be defining national law in this area. Why is that? Aren't there different state laws in regards to other institutions of daily life?
You know, champions of gay and lesbian rights like the Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, a relevant figure in light of recent developments, reported on in your story, is a supporter of AFM's marriage amendment. And the reason is because he knows that we are ultimately going to see the question of marriage decided at the national level through the federal courts. There has been a decade of lawsuits to achieve that result. There are federal lawsuits right now seeking to take the issue into federal court in Nebraska, in California, in other states. We simply want to take the issue to the people, consistent with our belief in democracy.
We would like to see the American people decide the question of the future of marriage; people want our laws to send a positive message to kids about marriages and family. They've spoken quite clearly at the polls.
- Same Sex Marriages Now Have Greater Protection In Oregon.
- Same-Sex Marriage?
- Oregon Supreme Court suspends judge who refused to marry gay couples.
- how to search for phone numbers.
- What do you think? Leave a respectful comment..
And ultimately they're going to have to speak at the national level, or the courts will have the final say. Kevin Cathcart, do you think that's right, that different laws in different places in the country is just not sustainable over the long run? I think it is something that's sustainable. We have seen it in many other legal arenas.
My goal certainly is not to have different standards in different parts of the country. I too think we need to send a strong message to kids about what America stands for, about what real family values are and what equality looks like. And that's why we are pushing for one standard for equal marriage rights and, yes, we are going to fight state by state. And, you know, it's a challenge right now because there have been constitutional amendments in a number of states.
Ultimately, this national conversation about equality is going to have to go forward. And we're going to have to go back to the voters in those states. As Matt Daniels points out in places where this has gone to voters your side of the question hasn't done very well. How do you — if you intend to turn that around with mass support, how do you do that?
Well, there's two things I would say to that. One, we are really in the early stages of a national conversation about equality and about families and about gay people. And so in many of these states, I think there has been a push from the right, a kind of rush to try and pass legislation or constitutional amendments before the conversation really has a chance to develop. And I think that's important. I think the second thing is if you look at the demographic data, there is significant support for equal marriage rights among younger people. And if you look at demographic data, you know, broken out by decades, every decade older currently, there is less support.
But the younger people, who overwhelmingly support equal marriage rights right now are going to continue to work their way through the system.
- Site Index!
- Program Operations Manual System (POMS);
- what is involved in background checks;
- sex offender management board standards colorado!
- Listen to our new podcast: Broken Justice.
- public access to california court records.
- phone number area code and exchange listing.
And I can look forward to a day in the not terribly distant future when those numbers are going to be very different. Matt Daniels, how do you respond to that idea, that this is a question of patience on the other side of the question because demographic realities are on their side? First of all, people's opinions change over time, particularly as they age and have children.